Julia Hartley-Brewer v Stella Creasy

If a couple can afford to keep one parent at home, why is that because they are being subsidised? I would have thought that it was because the working parent earned enough to keep the family. Obviously they would receive some state subsidy in the form of family allowance subject to earnings limits.
If the working parent earned enough to (and was expected to) pay tax and NI for two adults, then they wouldn't be being subsidised. As it is, when a single-wage family pays one lot of contributions because they can afford to live on one salary, of course they are being supported by the dual waged families who (despite having two wages and paying two lots of tax, NI etc) cannot afford to have one of them stay at home. When the single waged couple retire (if you can retire from being at home) they will get two pensions, having had two lots of NHS care (plus the care for their children), two people's share of libraries, road use, education and so on, all the while paying one lot of contributions.

I am not saying that this is wrong, but am asking how you can on the one hand say that you don't want to give financial support to others' chosen lifestyles whilst simultaneously advocating this one.

I think Callistemon said the right to vote by proxy had been renewed a few times but has now lapsed. Heaven knows why. Sounds totally daft. Perfect solution surely?

Thank you Coastpath. I absolutely am! Sorry I misunderstood.

Germanshepherdsmum I'm sorry I confused the 1950s thing. I was trying, perhaps clumsily, to say that I agree with you that the child should always be the first consideration and that is not an old fashioned idea. It sounds as though you got the balance just right for you and your son and you're obviously proud of him and your successful career.

] If I read Callistemon's post correctly MPs are allowed to vote by proxy.
So what is all the fuss about?

Doodledog

Population decrease might not be a bad thing, but a lot depends on which couples are not having children.

If only those who can afford to pay for round the clock childcare 'can afford' to have children, as well as those who live on benefits, or who are happy to be subsidised by the contributions of those who do work, we will end up with an unbalanced population.

The majority of couples would be working to pay for those who could afford to keep a parent at home, which is, effectively, what happened in the 50s, when many mothers stayed at home and paid no tax/NI, but had pension contributions paid for by those who could not afford to do the same.

How do you (*GSM*) square this inequitable state of affairs with your reluctance to subsidise others' lifestyles?

As to whether you need round the clock childcare, that rather depends on your chosen career doesn't it?

If a couple can afford to keep one parent at home, why is that because they are being subsidised? I would have thought that it was because the working parent earned enough to keep the family. Obviously they would receive some state subsidy in the form of family allowance subject to earnings limits.

I have already said that I'm not advocating all mothers staying at home and abandoning their careers. Far from it. But there comes a time when their children no longer need them to be at home all day and if they choose not to return to outside work or buy missing years of NI contributions then I don't consider that they should be entitled to full state pensions paid for by others such as you and I. There is far more choice for women nowadays than when I was a child.

Coastpath

"before someone decides to have a child, they should not consider how they will pay for its upbringing?"

It seems people are doing just that and deciding that they can't afford children. The birthrate in many countries including the UK is falling through the floor.

Surely this is a concern for society. As the population ages, and the workforce shrinks, what happens then? How is that going to play out in terms of tax and essential services?

The provision of flexible, family friendly policies enables parents who want to continue working. It doesn't make it compulsory. Those who want and are able to stay at home with their baby can do just that, but those that would rather work, or who have to work, can do so knowing that their child is safe and well cared for.

You say you have 1950s ideals GSM but I can see you quite rightly have children's welfare as you highest priority. I just don't think there is any evidence to suggest that children who have both parents working end up any less happy, healthy, successful or well adjusted as those who have a parent at home full time. We have to assume parents know what's best for them and their children and provide facilities - that they may pay for or may be subsidised - to enable them to do what works for them as a family.

My mum stayed at home with us when we were very young. She hated it and it made her so unhappy a shadow was cast over all of us. When she went back to work all of our lives improved.

I don't think I said I had 1950s ideals, actually I was accused of being a throwback to the 50s (or some such derogatory description).

I don't seek to suggest for a moment that children both of whose parents work are any less happy etc than those who have a stay at home parent. It gives them a good example - we've heard so much about the generations of a family who have never worked. My mother stayed at home (50s) and returned to work part-time when I went to secondary school. I couldn't afford to stay at home, but (and this is the whole point of what I have been trying to say) I tailored my type (and therefore hours) and place of work as far as I could to my child's needs. I waited some years to fulfil my professional ambitions. That was my choice. I didn't forego a career but it wasn't nearly as high flying as it could have been when my son was young. My professional achievements came later. I don't regret that and my son has inherited an excellent work ethic from my example. I sometimes started again on my work after he'd gone to bed and finished at 4am. He knew nothing of that at the time. I have never said that anyone should sacrifice their career, just that the child should be the first consideration.

Population decrease might not be a bad thing, but a lot depends on which couples are not having children.

If only those who can afford to pay for round the clock childcare 'can afford' to have children, as well as those who live on benefits, or who are happy to be subsidised by the contributions of those who do work, we will end up with an unbalanced population.

The majority of couples would be working to pay for those who could afford to keep a parent at home, which is, effectively, what happened in the 50s, when many mothers stayed at home and paid no tax/NI, but had pension contributions paid for by those who could not afford to do the same.

How do you (*GSM*) square this inequitable state of affairs with your reluctance to subsidise others' lifestyles?

It seems people are doing just that and deciding that they can't afford children. The birthrate in many countries including the UK is falling through the floor.

Surely this is a concern for society. As the population ages, and the workforce shrinks, what happens then? How is that going to play out in terms of tax and essential services?

I don't think population decrease which occurs naturally (not by wars or diseases) is a bad thing - the world's resources are limited

"before someone decides to have a child, they should not consider how they will pay for its upbringing?"

It seems people are doing just that and deciding that they can't afford children. The birthrate in many countries including the UK is falling through the floor.

Surely this is a concern for society. As the population ages, and the workforce shrinks, what happens then? How is that going to play out in terms of tax and essential services?

The provision of flexible, family friendly policies enables parents who want to continue working. It doesn't make it compulsory. Those who want and are able to stay at home with their baby can do just that, but those that would rather work, or who have to work, can do so knowing that their child is safe and well cared for.

You say you have 1950s ideals GSM but I can see you quite rightly have children's welfare as you highest priority. I just don't think there is any evidence to suggest that children who have both parents working end up any less happy, healthy, successful or well adjusted as those who have a parent at home full time. We have to assume parents know what's best for them and their children and provide facilities - that they may pay for or may be subsidised - to enable them to do what works for them as a family.

My mum stayed at home with us when we were very young. She hated it and it made her so unhappy a shadow was cast over all of us. When she went back to work all of our lives improved.

or at least be allowed to vote remotely.

Proxy voting
Proxy voting was introduced on 29 January 2019 as a twelve-month trial to enable MPs to cast a vote on behalf of another MP who was absent as a new parent. This trial period was extended on two occasions in 2020.

On 23 September 2020, the House of Commons agreed to make the proxy voting scheme permanent.

In response to the coronavirus pandemic, the House of Commons also agreed to extend the proxy voting scheme on 10 June 2020 to include MPs who were unable to attend Westminster for medical of public health reasons related to the pandemic.

On 3 November 2020, the House further extended proxy voting to any MP that didn't wish to vote in person for medical or public health reasons realting to the pandemic. These temporary arrangements expired on 22 July 2021.

MPs wishing to vote by proxy had to register to do so beforehand and identify who would cast their vote for them.

But we aren’t debating the merits or otherwise of being a SAHM - surely women should have the choice these days - what we are talking about is the bl**dy H of C and whether a woman should be allowed to vote with a newborn in a sling or at least be allowed to vote remotely. I can’t see a problem with it, we aren’t talking about taking your kids into play in the supermarket everyday or sitting in a board meeting, we are talking about some flexibility here. Some people aren’t getting that. Seems like some think women should be kept in the kitchen unless they have round the clock child care.

I honestly think some women become SAHMs more for themselves than the benefits for the children
Unpleasant and uncalled for growstuff

? I’ll get this right in a minute. Staying at home wasn’t for my benefit.

Being a SAHM I mean

Germanshepherdsmum

I wasn’t a SAHM.

I was GSM. That was probably aimed at me. I had a great career as a nurse...but still left. It certainly wasn’t for me.

I wasn’t a SAHM.

Germanshepherdsmum

My choice trisher. Of course he had to go to school at 5. Many professionals would happily pack their offspring off to boarding school at 7 for convenience . Why, if the intention from the outset is to pay a stranger to look after your child the moment you can get back to the office (or whatever) do you actually bother to have a child? When you finish work said child may be in bed and the only time you spend with them is at the weekend (assuming you’re not working, which with many jobs you will be) and holidays. Unless you’re doing it to keep up the birth rate, what’s the point? Mother first, child a poor second.

So, if a mother (or father) inadvertently becomes a single parent, does that mean that the child isn't worth bothering about, unless the parent gives up work?

I honestly think some women become SAHMs more for themselves than the benefits for the children.

I must have been a terrible parent, so it's strange that my children ended up well-balanced, feeling loved and - er - normal.

In what way is asking for flexibility in the workplace an aggressive demand.
Did you say it was aggressive when people with disabilities asked for physical access to public buildings, did you think it was aggressive when gay people asked for an equal age of consent. If it wasnt for women campaigning in a range of ways there would be no refuges, rape within marriage would still be legal. It's usually 'difficult' women who make history.

I think I know you from a former incarnation volver. Your professional achievements are quite something as I recall.?

I’ve come to the conversation late, so apologies if I’ve missed something. I was a SAHM, and the thought of working whilst bringing up my children wouldn’t have occurred to me, even if my husband had wanted me to. If that makes me a 1950’s mum...then so be it.

In my opinion, and that’s all it is, children come absolutely first, and unless you need to put food on the table, a mother’s job is her children. If you want a career, it should go on hold, or you don’t have them. Children are so precious, and the best gift of all. Work...you can do anytime.

My doctor once said to me, she often sees women who have regretted working, but none who have stayed at home. She was a working mum herself....and said she sometimes feels she doesn’t do either job properly.

I think the government needs to be paying mums to stay at home, instead of paying other people to look after their children while they work.

Children first....always

And quite likely a lot more in terms of status, equality and income than many of my critics.

In my professional experience of negotiating with men, you get much more without aggressive demands.

Well that's me told.

The lawyers you saw on jury duty were paid to put forward their clients’ cases.
I have put forward my case which favours children’s welfare over women’s short term career ambitions. It’s entirely clear that the jury will convict me as a throwback to the 50s. I was however a woman who had it all, just not all at once. And quite likely a lot more in terms of status, equality and income than many of my critics - plus the closest relationship with my child that I could ever wish for. It was worth a wait and being patient. In my professional experience of negotiating with men, you get much more without aggressive demands.

I don't know many solicitors, lawyers, that kind of thing. The only ones I've had contact with were when I was doing jury duty. Seemed to me that the person was taking a position that they may or may not have agreed with, but they were determined to use any and all discussions about angels on the head of a pin that they could, to make their point and cast doubt on the testimony of the other side.

Why have I thought of that today, I wonder...?

My choice trisher. Of course he had to go to school at 5. Many professionals would happily pack their offspring off to boarding school at 7 for convenience . Why, if the intention from the outset is to pay a stranger to look after your child the moment you can get back to the office (or whatever) do you actually bother to have a child? When you finish work said child may be in bed and the only time you spend with them is at the weekend (assuming you’re not working, which with many jobs you will be) and holidays. Unless you’re doing it to keep up the birth rate, what’s the point? Mother first, child a poor second.